Falkland Islands are Argentine signs 'regrettable'

[dubbplatz]

Love us or hate us we have done a lot if good things in this world and continue to do so every day!

Edited November 23, 2014 by dubbplatz

[7by7]

Argentina has a case to make about Las Malvinas but mandating a sign about that on public vehicles is kind of pathetic.

So, Argentina, if you don't mind too much, I may just CRY for you!

Argentina has no legitimate claim to The Falkland's; and will not have until and unless the people living there decide they want to be Argentine.

Anyone who says otherwise cannot legitimately claim to believe in democracy.

Democracy does not only apply when one agrees with the result!

[Pete Beale]

Didn't the people of the Islands have a referendum or vote on this issue at one point in time?

Yes & wasn't that a fair & balanced out come--- ask just the British land owners on there .... Do you want things to remain as they are.

Yes mate was the surprised answer, in March 2013 by 99.8% (there still looking to hang the 1 guy that voted no).

Much the same vote was recorded in Gibraltar, a lump of rock that is actually join to Spain by a road, --this is part of England also, because just the people on the rock say so.

.

Something akin to asking the republican party only---who should be the next president.....fair & balanced.

They asked the whole population of the Falklands that are of voting age if they wanted to remain a British overseas territory, not "just the British land owners on there" as you put it. Perhaps you can explain a fairer and more democratic way the vote could of been done ?

[mitsubishi]

Didn't the people of the Islands have a referendum or vote on this issue at one point in time?

They did, but that doesn't mean anything to the Argies.

[Chicog]

The Argies were whinging a little while ago about Britain firing off a few rounds off our islands.

Truth is they know they if they try and send any military hardware there, it will be quickly dispatched to Davy Jones Locker.

[mitsubishi]

Off-topic posts and replies removed.

A minor error may have been made in an earlier post about Hong Kong. I believe that the New Territories were under a 99 year lease, but that the British had Hong Kong Island in perpetuity.

Pretty much what happened was the Brits did indeed have most of the islands signed over forever to Britain. The mainland part and a few more islands was the later addition (the 99 year part) that caused the thing to unravel.

Unfortunately in or about 1980 I think the governor of HK treacherously negotiated the complete handover of everything lock, stock and barrel!

Maggie went along with it and of course the Chicoms rulers tried to justify it as being a forced handover (back in the 1800s). Not that they could talk, given their own horrendous track record. Plus we'd made the territory into a financial powerhouse.

So Britain roared for the Falklands but not for Hong Kong.

[copa8]

Off-topic posts and replies removed.

A minor error may have been made in an earlier post about Hong Kong. I believe that the New Territories were under a 99 year lease, but that the British had Hong Kong Island in perpetuity.

Pretty much what happened was the Brits did indeed have most of the islands signed over forever to Britain. The mainland part and a few more islands was the later addition (the 99 year part) that caused the thing to unravel.

Unfortunately in or about 1980 I think the governor of HK treacherously negotiated the complete handover of everything lock, stock and barrel!

Maggie went along with it and of course the Chicoms rulers tried to justify it as being a forced handover (back in the 1800s). Not that they could talk, given their own horrendous track record. Plus we'd made the territory into a financial powerhouse.

So Britain roared for the Falklands but not for Hong Kong.

Why did China need justification? I might be wrong, but wholesale dumping of opium on the civilian masses was a bad thing right?

[bendejo]

The Falklands issue has been kept open in Arg over the years. I spent some time down there over the past 15 years and I noticed that the topic came up in the press at least twice a week. Monuments dedicated, politicians assuring the public "your sons who fought in the Malvinas did not die in vain." Movies even, there was one about attempted sabotage of the Brit navy in Gibraltar.

This idea of stirring things up about this down there as diversion from the economy tanking is spot on. I was last down there in 2011, the exchage rate was running between 3 and 4 pesos to US$1, it's now 8.5.

[MAJIC]

It seems very clear the Falklanders have voted to remain British,indeed have never been owned or occupied (except briefly in the Falklands war) by Argentine!

Spain has a similar argument,about Gibraltar,who also had a Referendum and unanimously voted to remain British!

[MAJIC]

Oh dear, are things so bad in the UK, they need a new bogus war to prevent civil unrest.

Or would that be another Galtiera style necessary war to save being kicked out of office? no doubt he lost the war,and promptly got booted out,by his own people, same as what would have happened to Thatcher had she lost the Falklands war!

BritmanToo: Ask yourself: who is stirring up the Falklands to prevent civil unrest ? it most certainly is ridiculous to suggest the UK. The Falklands issue is dead and buried,and the UK has nothing to gain by labouring the issue! however Argentina has!

Edited November 23, 2014 by MAJIC

[MAJIC]

Off-topic posts and replies removed.

A minor error may have been made in an earlier post about Hong Kong. I believe that the New Territories were under a 99 year lease, but that the British had Hong Kong Island in perpetuity.

Pretty much what happened was the Brits did indeed have most of the islands signed over forever to Britain. The mainland part and a few more islands was the later addition (the 99 year part) that caused the thing to unravel.

Unfortunately in or about 1980 I think the governor of HK treacherously negotiated the complete handover of everything lock, stock and barrel!

Maggie went along with it and of course the Chicoms rulers tried to justify it as being a forced handover (back in the 1800s). Not that they could talk, given their own horrendous track record. Plus we'd made the territory into a financial powerhouse.

So Britain roared for the Falklands but not for Hong Kong.

"

So Britain roared for the Falklands but not for Hong Kong."

But of course! taking on Argentina as opposed to China was small fish! What other country in the world would have done any different???

And that's why the worlds markets are flooded with cheap chinese inferior goods,which Chinese manufacturers copied from Hong Kong,and were happy to become Capitalist,in order to sell their goods/ c**p even if it did mean,ditching communisim!

[MAJIC]

Off-topic posts and replies removed.

A minor error may have been made in an earlier post about Hong Kong. I believe that the New Territories were under a 99 year lease, but that the British had Hong Kong Island in perpetuity.

Pretty much what happened was the Brits did indeed have most of the islands signed over forever to Britain. The mainland part and a few more islands was the later addition (the 99 year part) that caused the thing to unravel.

Unfortunately in or about 1980 I think the governor of HK treacherously negotiated the complete handover of everything lock, stock and barrel!

Maggie went along with it and of course the Chicoms rulers tried to justify it as being a forced handover (back in the 1800s). Not that they could talk, given their own horrendous track record. Plus we'd made the territory into a financial powerhouse.

So Britain roared for the Falklands but not for Hong Kong.

And that was the main problem with the British Empire it was much too successful,not that I am suggesting that was a good thing! neither was England being Colonised for 900 years,but let's not spoil a good story ! for the those who have never read English History! and prefer to believe what suits their extreme biased views!

Footnote: Do any of our Scandinavian friends ever remember being tought about the Vikings in their schools? if so it will be doughtful comepletely accurate.But certainly Bloody!

[teatree]

The islanders have a better claim over the Falklands than the Americans have over the USA, the Aussies over Australia , the Israelis have over Israel and most ironically the Argies over Argentina.

No indigenous peoples were displaced or murdered and 99% of the population assert self determination.

When Argentina gives its land back to the South American Indians the Falkand Islanders might think about relinquishing control.

Although, as the place has no indigenous people (in fact the Falkland Islanders ARE the indigenous people) the is no one to actually give the land back to. Maybe the place could be abandoned and left to the penguins.

Maybe one day Argentina will have a big enough military and enough friends to take the placce back by force, but till then the Argies are not getting it "back", and never without a war.

Edited November 25, 2014 by teatree

[MikeOboe57]

"Most of the islands" was a whopping 14%, without most of the port area, the reservoirs and other vital installations, so hardly self sustainable.

[Scott]

Off-topic posts and replies removed.